Why Trump is angry at Canada again and what consequences this could have

The current situation around Greenland has revived Canada’s fears about security and political stability, prompting Canadian politicians and the public to mobilise in defence of national interests.

Read more about how and why the US president is unsettling Canada in the article by Dmytro Sherenhovskyi of the Ukrainian Catholic University: Trump’s new target of aggression: how Canada is preparing for confrontation with the United States.

The White House’s aggressive rhetoric towards Greenland has triggered alarming déjà vu for many in Canada.

Statements that sounded like absurd jokes just a year ago are now perceived as a very real threat.

According to Pew Research, in 2025 about 59% of Canadians named the United States as the country’s greatest threat, whereas in 2019 only 20% thought so, and China was then seen as the main adversary.

Now Washington outpaces Beijing in this negative ranking by more than three times.

Another survey by the OPSA center conducted in October 2025 and cited by Global News shows that 37% of northern Canadians named the American presence as the greatest danger to Canada, while 35% pointed to Russia and only 17% to China.

In other words, Washington is now feared more than Moscow in the Canadian Arctic. This is felt particularly acutely in Yukon, which borders the US state of Alaska, and in Nunavut, whose northern neighbour is Greenland itself.

Against the backdrop of escalation around Greenland, the Canadian government immediately sided with Denmark and the EU. Canadian public opinion and media also reacted sharply.

Greenland, like Canada’s North, is rich in natural resources. It holds vast reserves of oil and rare earth elements essential for modern electronics.

In addition, Greenland is a strategic foothold: control over the island would give the United States dominance over the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic crossroads, through which routes between North America, Europe and Asia pass.

Notably, justifying his claims, Trump invokes US "national security," arguing that America "needs" to control the Arctic, otherwise Russia or China will strengthen their positions there.

For Prime Minister Carney, the situation is far from simple: on the one hand, he must show solidarity with European allies; on the other, he must try not to make an enemy of Trump.

A direct US military intervention in Canada is unlikely, so the issue is essentially about hybrid methods of American pressure.

For example, the US president could raise the issue of the US-Canada border and has already threatened to "get rid of" the 49th parallel that separates the two countries.

There are concerns that the White House could unilaterally violate long-standing bilateral agreements on the joint use of natural resources, as well as aggressively challenge Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic (Americans could demonstratively sail their ships through the Northwest Passage, which Ottawa considers its internal waters, while Washington views it as an international strait).

Economic and technological leverage also remains in Trump’s arsenal.

Another challenge is that Trump will demand Ottawa abandon any steps towards diversifying trade and investment that reduce dependence on the United States.

Already it is clear: every time Canada tries to build closer ties with Europe or Asia, Washington reacts painfully.

In other words, Trump sees Canada as part of the American sphere of influence, where there should be no room for "agency" or outside players.

This situation may have long-term consequences. A wall of distrust has grown between Ottawa and Washington, and it will not be easy to dismantle even after a change of administration in the White House.